OU Game

[runbikeswim]

I thought Oklahoma looked really good, but can't believe they lost to TTech.

In addition to what others have pointed out, I think what was so good to see last night was our passing. It looked the best I have seen all year. Like the ISU teams of past years that always won the super long rallies.

My only concern from last nights match was Capezio. I am usually a big fan/defender of hers, but her hitting errors were numerous. I know Christy wants to use her as the engine that can like Rachel and Victoria of past on the pin, but I think Ciara loses confidence when she is stuck on the left pin with a double block in front of her and she is being over set. She is our best front row player in the back row, so I know they want her in for full rotation for defense, and she is a great server, but I think she also gets fatigued with having 30+ sets, and playing full rotation.

 

[gizzsdad]

Agree on the announcers. On the first challenge, they weren't even close. They thought Christy was asking for a net fault, when they had called the line judge over for a discussion. Line judges don't have any input on net calls, EVER. At the conclusion of the challenge, the R2 awarded the point to OU (decision upheld), and signaled out. So apparently earlier in the rally, there must have been an antenna fault. Keep in the mind, that the challenge system has nothing to do with what's being shown on TV. They are separate systems.

Vondrak was playing OH for Capezio.

Always get a kick hearing fans who haven't a clue about the rules complain about officiating.

 

[StClone]

Always get a kick hearing fans who haven't a clue about the rules complain about officiating.

Why don't you educate us rather than slight?

 

[Timberghost]

Did anybody else notice in the first set that they had the hawkeye logo up for isu?

 

[gizzsdad]

Why don't you educate us rather than slight?

Sure. I watched about 75% of the match. An earlier poster stated, point blank, that the officials were "terrible", apparently because they didn't call as many ball handling faults as he thought they should. I saw a handful of non-calls that could be considered "gray area", but none that were terrible.

Every year the officials attend rules clinics, jointly sponsored by the NCAA/PAVO, which often include many videos of examples of ball handling, followed by discussion/instruction. I suspect the poster did not appreciate many of the first balls that are taken overhand. First, by rule, we can never call a double contact based on a single attempt to play any first ball, no matter how egregious. I grew up playing and coaching in an era where you NEVER took any served or hard driven ball overhand. It would either be called a double or an illegal contact - automatically. But the techniques and rules writers have changed. The prevailing trend is to call less of the marginal ball handling faults, it is considered to be "interfering" with the flow of the match. There is even discussion, though preliminary, of not calling ANY ball handling faults. Most of these "adjustments", are flowing down from international (FIVB).

Personally, I hope we never devolve to just "letting them play." I think it detracts from the skill and beauty of the sport. But I am not in a position to influence those decisions. One of the adjustments to club volleyball that has not made it into NCAA play yet, though it has been discussed, is a much liberalized net foul, where the only fault is contact with the top tape. You can absolutely rake the net on a follow through, but since your contact was one square down from the tape, it is ignored, even though you may have pulled the net down a foot or more. Some, not all, of the coaches who have experience with it in club ball like it and would like to see it incorporated into NCAA play.

So the officials in our match last night called it pretty much the way they are being told to call it. If we don't like it, our complaint is with the rules writers rather than the officials. But if each of us don't understand all the subtleties and reasoning of the way it is being taught, we are often better served to keep our mouths shut rather than judging officials as terrible.

 

[runbikeswim]

Sure. I watched about 75% of the match. An earlier poster stated, point blank, that the officials were "terrible", apparently because they didn't call as many ball handling faults as he thought they should. I saw a handful of non-calls that could be considered "gray area", but none that were terrible.

Every year the officials attend rules clinics, jointly sponsored by the NCAA/PAVO, which often include many videos of examples of ball handling, followed by discussion/instruction. I suspect the poster did not appreciate many of the first balls that are taken overhand. First, by rule, we can never call a double contact based on a single attempt to play any first ball, no matter how egregious. I grew up playing and coaching in an era where you NEVER took any served or hard driven ball overhand. It would either be called a double or an illegal contact - automatically. But the techniques and rules writers have changed. The prevailing trend is to call less of the marginal ball handling faults, it is considered to be "interfering" with the flow of the match. There is even discussion, though preliminary, of not calling ANY ball handling faults. Most of these "adjustments", are flowing down from international (FIVB).

Personally, I hope we never devolve to just "letting them play." I think it detracts from the skill and beauty of the sport. But I am not in a position to influence those decisions. One of the adjustments to club volleyball that has not made it into NCAA play yet, though it has been discussed, is a much liberalized net foul, where the only fault is contact with the top tape. You can absolutely rake the net on a follow through, but since your contact was one square down from the tape, it is ignored, even though you may have pulled the net down a foot or more. Some, not all, of the coaches who have experience with it in club ball like it and would like to see it incorporated into NCAA play.

So the officials in our match last night called it pretty much the way they are being told to call it. If we don't like it, our complaint is with the rules writers rather than the officials. But if each of us don't understand all the subtleties and reasoning of the way it is being taught, we are often better served to keep our mouths shut rather than judging officials as terrible.

I was watching the Wisconsin/Penn State match where the very educated announcers (Big 10 of course) were discussing that basically a lift or carry will never be called on the serve receive.

However, a couple times last night, where the receiver took the serve in the chest then swung their arms up to hit the ball, while maybe "legal" is clearly a double hit to me. But it is what it is.

Just like WBB, the rules of letting them play do diminish the value of some skills.

 

[gizzsdad]

......that basically a lift or carry will never be called on the serve receive.

Actually this should not be true either. The only allowance that is made on first contacts (including serve receive) is to eliminate the double contact call. The rule regarding contacts with prolonged contact have not changed, though clearly every official's judgement is going to be somewhat different.

 

[psyclone51]

........ I grew up playing and coaching in an era where you NEVER took any served or hard driven ball overhand. It would either be called a double or an illegal contact - automatically. But the techniques and rules writers have changed. .......

Same here. But those were those days, and these are these days. Rules change in every sport. Right or wrong, good or bad. Thanks for coming to the defense of the officials. I thought they did fine; have seen worse at Hilton, with some officials. But overall, I am much happier with VB officiating than WBB officiating. I find VB much more consistent - and of course, it is an easier sport to officiate.